Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And you keep responding.
It's only a waste of time when one side has no evidence to bring to the table. Oh waitI actually had stopped debating this subject for almost a decade before I came to this site late last week. It's a temporary guilty pleasure for me right now. And there is no way I'll get into the weeds with lengthy "evidence ridden" replies. It's a waste of time, for both sides. Again, this is something I learned when arguing AGW
It's not purely conjecture, because there are aspects of the past which are directly measurable (such as Neanderthal DNA and ancient air bubbles trapped in ice, amber, etc.). Also, hypothesis still means testable, and after a hypothesis is tested enough and stands up to scrutiny, what does it become? Rhetorical question, it becomes a theory.As I've said before, my biggest problem with the whole evolution "thing" is the discussion of things that happened "millions of years ago" as fact rather than hypothesis or conjecture.
This is interesting. I was talking to a fellow at a large church about a rather controversial subject within Christian circles and he mentioned that after working at a church where many of the members were professors at the nearby Christian university, he found that the more one of them knew about the subject, the less sure they were of their opinion on it.
i.e. you are projecting.
I really don't know about that. My knowledge of it is more in the AGW fake science front rather than this.
Who told you that and why did you believe them?
Of course, it's also possible they did exist but went extinct. With ID there are all sorts of possibilities. When someone comes up with a better explanation, I'll buy it.
The problem is that you can't argue with evidence. You have none. You do not appear to understand the topic and as predicted you do not seem to want to learn.I really don't know about that. My knowledge of it is more in the AGW fake science front rather than this.
I actually had stopped debating this subject for almost a decade before I came to this site late last week. It's a temporary guilty pleasure for me right now. And there is no way I'll get into the weeds with lengthy "evidence ridden" replies. It's a waste of time, for both sides. Again, this is something I learned when arguing AGW
As I've said before, my biggest problem with the whole evolution "thing" is the discussion of things that happened "millions of years ago" as fact rather than hypothesis or conjecture.
Please drop the faux outrage. I asked you a specific question that you chose to evade giving a meaningful answer to. If we are to have serious discussion on a scientific subject then we need to employ the appropriate scientific terminology. "Kinds" is not scientific by any stretch of the imagination. [If any one is entitled to outrage, real or affected, it would be me.]
Now, as to your response here. Canis is a genus. Passer domesticus is a species. Based on this I am at a loss to determine which taxonomic level you think constitutes a kind. It seems that when you are talking about dogs, wolves and coyotes then kinds are genera, but when you reference sparrows, they are species. Would it be simpler if we just agreed that you lack the education in this topic to deliver a cogent argument? Or will you give me a properly considered answer to my question; which taxonomic level constitutes a "kind".
Actually, a lot of my posts on this subject ARE projection, but in a "being a man, I know the heart of man" sort of way.
The thing is, I see this as, at its core, an argument between two different religious beliefs, but only one side admits it.
Until and unless I have read the material you are refering to in the second edition I can hardly accept your characterisation that it is "speculative analogous rationalisation".
I have assumed you meant cannot demonstrate rather than can demonstrate. (That Freud chap was a bit of a cad.)
Sadly I understand the mindset of many AGW deniers, I use to deny it myself. At that time there were a few scientists, but none climate scientists, that doubted AGW. I used their arguments. But I also listened to and read the sources of those opposing me. I started to have doubts, and I knew that my initial rejection was due to Al Gore, who I still can't stand. I hated the messenger.What's this?
ANOTHER non-scientist science expert on all issues?
And 'fake science' to boot?
LOL!
The hubris of these people...
If you saw 500 million years of evolution going back through time to the cambrian, then as rocks became more metamorphosed and as fossils lost their shells and became tougher to find (though soft bodied fossils have been found in the earliest parts of the cambrian and predating the explosion), then it is less plausible to propose the idea that cambrian organisms appeared out of thin air, than to propose the idea that they simply didnt fossilize (which is already evident in the less and less fossilized soft bodied organisms as you go further and further back in time).
Phylogenetic 'linkages' are premised on tested methodologies:
Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns of shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this is, in fact, based on tested methods:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
Um...
I guess you missed the entire point of me posting that:
"Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns of shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this has, in fact, based on tested methods"
in response to what you had written:
"You read the DNA with the assumption that similarities are links rather than ways in which the Creator solved similiar problems in different creatures"
What I posted were examples of 'proof of concept' type papers regarding the use of DNA data for phylogenetic research.
You test methods by using knowns.
Yes?
It may sound reasonable to you but still it cannot be demonstrated and so the argument is speculative.
You are talking about 500 million year guesses so I guess "premised" is the key word there.
Apparent projection again. You may have to guess. Scientists are not allowed to do that. They have to test their ideas. Their ideas need to be testable, others have to be able to get the same results that they did, in other words the tests must be repeatable. Many creationists do not understand that the tests must be repeatable, not the event itself. Creationists have no testable explanation. They have no evidence for their claims.You are talking about 500 million year guesses so I guess "premised" is the key word there.
I think you are referring to a different thread. And that last line is a bit ironic.Right - "I'm outta here" is not "I'm leaving."
Whatever.
Always condescending mind-reading from pompous creationists, never anything of value or merit.
It may sound reasonable to you but still it cannot be demonstrated and so the argument is speculative.
You're right. I don't expect to change the opinion of a creationist, and I have no intention of becoming a right-wing fundamentalist Protestant even if the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow. I originally came to forums like this because I was in education and ran into creationists in real life. I wanted to see if there was any more to it than epithets and spittle. I stay because I had to live in the Bible Belt for a while and got a chip on my shoulder about all of the hostility and even violence that gets handed out when creationists think they have the upper hand. You're right again--it's fun.I think you are referring to a different thread. And that last line is a bit ironic.
I've been arguing this stuff since 1998 on the internet and decades before that in the real world. One thing I learned quite a while ago is that nobody changes their opinion, no matter what, and no matter which side they are on, based on internet forums. So, with that perspective, I just come here to have fun.
I moved to the bible belt from Seattle six years ago. I've experienced what you are talking about, but not on this particular issue, obviously. The dogmatism is pretty rampant.I stay because I had to live in the Bible Belt for a while and got a chip on my shoulder about all of the hostility and even violence that gets handed out when creationists think they have the upper hand. You're right again--it's fun.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?